I tried - I really did !!

[tonymadge]

Ahh but it lacks that real feel of FSX.....



See what I mean

[DaveB]

I do Tony but the difference is.. I like the Simpsons!

ATB

DaveB :tab:

[tonymadge]

Good point Dave Do you think they will sue FSX for use of their sky??

[Tweek]

But a heavily modded FSX will blow a heavily modded FS9 out the water!

complete cock of an answer...FS9 with add-ons will beat FSX anyday...why?? well have a hunt around the forums, speak to folk..have you ever heard of so many dissenters??

Yes, yes I have. Not too long ago, I was one of them.

But, with a little time and effort, I got the sim to run as I liked, with nice visuals. Even before I purchased FEX.

A little reading up goes a long way. Config tweaks, modified textures and general computer related claptrap make a large difference. You can bet that most (not all) of the people who complain about FSX, either haven't bothered to attempt to refine the sim to a standard which they're happy with, or they're unrealistically expecting it to run at 50FPS with a 5 year old system. Sometimes it's people who haven't even played FSX. :roll:

Again, I understand why people want to stick with FS9, but you can't seriously suggest that is the better sim. So what if the default FSX has unrealistic, cartoonish clouds and sky? Simple texture changes can fix that, payware or freeware.

I wonder how many people can honestly say that in 2003, FS9 ran perfectly, straight out of the box, with heaps of stunning visuals. I know I can't...

Two more shots of my current setup, exactly as I fly:
[DC-3 - default, mesh - default, ground textures - default, water/clouds/sky - Flight Environment X, autogen - TreeX)




I've not yet experimented with different texture sets available with FEX yet, so I could find a combination that's better...

[nigelb]

Good point Dave Do you think they will sue FSX for use of their sky??

[tonymadge]

I understand why people want to stick with FS9, but you can't seriously suggest that is the better sim

Yes I can and many others do to
point 1. FS9 out of the box was never this much trouble. I bought FSX and then sold it as I was not happy with it.
point 2. So many FS9 add-ons were incompatible with FSX...er where is the backwards compatability they luaded about.
point 3. tweaking and tweaking just to get it to run....not really a good selling point??
point 4. FS9 out of the box verse FSX out of the box wins everytime.
point 5. FSX was stated to be ideal for dual CPU's and DX10 it seems it is suited no better than FS9 on both accounts.
point 6. I have a decent system AMD 3800 CPU SLI video etc etc, FSX ran like a dog....out of the box...
point 7. There is no point 7 I just added this for effect ;-)

[TSR2]

One thing I would like to say is that you can't expect models to get better if you want full backwards compatibility... there isn't a GAME on the market that has done this.

[Garry Russell]

FS though has models that are too complex to keep remaking so it has to be backwards compatable.

As it stands it will take until the next sim to remake the models for the current sim.

Garry

[Garry Russell]

There is a big difference Joe

Those Sim models were not as complex as the current offererings.

Garry

[TSR2]

It doesn't really have to be backwards compatible Garry... It just needs to be a standard approach. Nothing is ever Too complicated to remake... it SHOULD be more straight forward to remake something than for somebody new to make it from scratch (theory anyway.)

I can't see DM's current VC10 (for example) flying in a sim 10 years from now... some new whipper snapper will have picked up the mantle and given it a go with all the things that are current at that time.

p.s. Hi Joe